Delhi District Court
Satyender Kumar Patel vs M/S Manappuram Finance Ltd on 16 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GOEL:
PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Ref: F.3(244)/16/Ref./wd/lab/944
Dated: 27.09.2016
POIT NO.: 1111/2016
Workman
Sh. Satyender Kumar Patel
S/o Sh. Bechai Patel,
R/o Village Rehav, Post Adua Bazar,
District Maharajganj,
Uttar Pradesh-273303
Also at:
C/o Delhi Mazdoor Sangh (Regd.)
A-217, Karampura, New Delhi-110015.
Vs.
The Management of
1. M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd.
Building No. G-1/155, Above Bank of India
In front of Metro Pillar No. 677,
Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059.
2. M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd.
IV/470A (OLD) W638A, (New)
Manappuram House Valappad,
Thrissur, Kerela-680567.
Date of Institution : 05.12.2016
Date of presentation : 17.05.2023
before this court
Date of Arguments : 16.11.2023
Date of Award : 16.11.2023
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 1/19
AWAR D
1. The Labour Department, Govt. of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi has referred this dispute arising between the
parties named above for adjudication to this Tribunal vide
notification F.3(244)/16/Ref./wd/Lab/944, dated: 27.09.2016 with
following terms of the reference:-
"Whether the punishment imposed upon the workman Sh.
Satyender Kumar Patel S/o Sh. Bechai Patel by the
management vide memo No. S./Enq./315381/6/2016
dated 06.05.2016 is illegal and unsatisfied and if so, to
what relief is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?"
2. Statement of Claim has been filed on behalf of the workman
stating therein that the workman had been in employment of the
management at Delhi as Junior Assistant @ Rs. 10,386/- per month
for the last since 25.07.2015 continuously with a flawless record of
service. It is stated that workman was given a memo dated
03.03.2016 by post with a false and frivolous allegation of
misappropriation of Rs. 41,10,625/- in connivance with other
employees which was appropriately replied by the workman to the
management.
3. It is averred that workman lodged a complaint to the Labour
Office in this regard and on 29.07.2016 on Sh. Raghav Aggarwal,
Legal Manager appeared and stated taht enquiry has already been
closed and shall pay the wages of suspension period, even though
suspension is closed. It is stated that no enquiry on the charges was
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 2/19
conducted by management so the question of closing the enquiry
does not arise at all and instead of it, the management by imposing
the punishment, transferred the workman at Hibbal, Mesur Branch
and also stopped the promotion for three years for which the
workman also replied the same to management on 29.04.2016.
4. It is averred that when the management took back the charge
sheet and no enquiry was conducted then how the penalty was
imposed against the workman by transferring and stopped the
promotion for three years which is illegal and unjustified on the part
of management. It is also stated that there was no clause of transfer
in the offer letter of the management which was given to the
workman at the time of appointment, hence, the transfer is illegal
and unjustified. It is further stated that workman served protest and
demand notice/letter dated 19.05.2016 with a demand of full wages
for the month of March and April 2016 on the management which
stand unrefuted and uncontroverted by it.
5. It is also averred that when workman approached to the union,
the union espoused the case in which the workman gave the
authority to the union to file the case regarding the illegal and
unjustified transfer and stopped the promotion for three years vide
espousal dated 20.05.2016. It was prayed that workman is entitled
for promotion and not to be transferred any other place except Delhi
where he used to work since the date of his appointment by declaring
Memo dated 06.05.2016 as illegal and unjustified. Hence, claim was
filed by workman before the Tribunal.
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 3/19
6. Written Statement was filed by the management wherein it
was stated that workman has not come with clean hands before the
court as he has suppressed the material facts and present claim is not
maintainable. On merits, it was stated that workman was appointed
with management on 25.07.2015 and appointment letter was duly
signed by the workman wherein transfer of workman was mentioned
in clause 2.
7. It is stated that workman, with support of Branch Head Mr.
Sanjay Kumar and Asst. Branch Head Mr. Vikas Kumar purposely
granted gold loans for an amount of Rs. 41,10,625/- against spurious
items in favour of the customers and act of the workman has resulted
in huge monitory loss apart from the damages caused to the
reputation of management company. It is stated that on 25.02.2016,
Mr. Narayana Gouda, Internal Auditor of management company has
reported a cash shortage of amounting to Rs. 2,62,998/- in Rohini,
Sector-3, Branch of the management and Branch Head explained
that Mr. Rajesh Kumar (Customer) has given ornaments against
which cash was released but the pledge was not done in the system.
It is stated that in order to compensate the cash shortage, the Branch
Head with the help of Assistant Branch Head and the workman
created three pledges for an amount of Rs. 99,999/-, Rs. 99,999/- and
Rs. 63,000/- respectively which are reportedly dummy pledges
without any ornaments which were subsequently settled without
receiving the cash by Branch Head for avoiding internal audit
thereby the Branch Head with the support of Assistant Branch Head
and the workman has given cash to the said Rajesh without
collecting gold ornaments.
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 4/19
8. It is further stated that after that Branch Head with the support
of Assistant Branch Head and workman has also settled five pledge
accounts in the name of Mr. Rajesh for an amount of Rs. 5,00,644/-
of which ornaments are reportedly spurious without receiving cash in
order to escape from the audit. It is stated that after releasing the
above pledges, the cash shortage of branch, at the end of day reached
Rs. 7,62,848/- which was reported by the internal auditor and after
detailed inspection, more spurious accounts were reported in the
branch, three spurious pledges were found in the name of Mr.
Praveen for an amount of Rs. 9,49,804/-, one account in the name of
Pawan Kumar amounting to Rs. 4,98,478/-, one account in the name
of Ramesh Kumar for Rs. 4,63,363/-, one loan amount in the name
of Vijay Kumar amounting to Rs. 3,90,232/- and three loan accounts
in the name of Sonu amounting to Rs. 10,44,900/- total amounting
to Rs. 33,46,777/- as pure spurious.
9. Thereafter, a memo dated 03.03.2016 was issued to the
workman mentioning that the workman has colluded with Branch
Head and Assistant Branch Head and committed gross misconducts
involving financial misappropriation of the funds of the management
company purposely granting Gold Loans against spurious items in
favour of customers aggregating Rs. 41,10,625/- and workman was
placed under suspension with immediate effect. It was also reported
in said memo that workman was negligent in performing his
assigned duties with ulterior intention to misappropriate the funds of
the management company. It is stated that workman was intimated
by letter dated 19.03.2016 that enquiry would be conducted on
05.04.2016 from 10.00 a.m. onwards. It is stated that workman
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 5/19
despite being given opportunity to remain present at inquiry, the
workman remained absent from hearing without submitting any
application/explanation or any other reason. It is stated that
management also lodged an FIR No. 0235/2016 under section
40/420/468/471/120B IPC dated 08.06.2016 against the workman
and staff members involved in frauding the management. It is stated
that a reporting memo dated 06.05.2016 was issued to the workman
mentioning that management has confirmed his proposed
punishment of baring his promotion/transfer for the next three years
and his suspension was revoked with immediate effect and workman
was transferred to Hebbal Mysore Branch, Mangalore region but
workman neither pay any heed upon the reporting memo nor join the
management. Thereafter, workman issued a notice dated 25.06.2016
mentioning that workman has not reported for duty and not
submitted satisfactory explanation as directed, accordingly, name of
workman was removed from the rolls of the management w.e.f.
25.06.2016 and payment of subsistence allowance to suspended
employee was transferred in the account of workman by
management. Rest of the contentions of the statement of claim were
denied.
10. Rejoinder was also filed to the written statement of
management wherein contents of claim were reiterated and
reaffirmed and those of written statement were denied.
11. After the pleadings of parties, the following issues were
framed by Ld. predecessor on 09.04.2018:-
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 6/19
(i) Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is not fair
and proper?OPW
(ii) In case the answer to issue No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether
the workman has committed the misconduct as alleged by the
management?OPM
(iii) Whether the claim of the workman has been properly
espoused by the Union?OPW
(iv) As per terms of reference. OPW
(v) Relief.
12. To prove his case, the workman examined himself as WW1
and filed an affidavit Ex. WW1/A in his examination in chief. He
was cross-examined and discharged. WW-2 Sh. Tarsem Raj also
appeared in witness box on behalf of workman. Despite opportunity,
AR for management did not appear to cross-examine the WW-2,
hence, one more opportunity was granted to management for cross-
examination of WW-2 subject to cost of Rs. 5000/- vide order dated
19.05.2022. Thereafter, on 03.06.2022, the AR for management
appeared and stated that he does not want to cross-examine WW-2,
hence, opportunity to cross-examine the WW-2 was forfeitted and
W.E. was closed and matter was posted for M.E.
13. In defence, management neither appeared nor produced any
witness. The Ld. Predecessor court also observed that workman has
not received advance copy of the evidence affidavit and no affidavit
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 7/19
was filed, hence, M.E. was closed vide order dated 16.09.2022 and
matter was posted for final arguments.
14. I have gone through the entire records of the case including
pleadings of the parties, evidence led and documents proved during
evidence. Arguments of respectives parties have been heard at
length.
15. Now moving on to the factual matrix of the case, it is the case
of the workman that he had been in employment of the management
at Delhi as Junior Assistant @ Rs. 10,386/- per month for the last
since 25.07.2015 continuously with a flawless record of service. It is
pleaded that workman was given a memo dated 03.03.2016 by post
with a false and frivolous allegation of misappropriation of Rs.
41,10,625/- in connivance with other employees which was
appropriately replied by the workman to the management. It is
pleaded that workman lodged a complaint to the Labour Office in
this regard and on 29.07.2016 on Sh. Raghav Aggarwal, Legal
Manager appeared and stated taht enquiry has already been closed
and shall pay the wages of suspension period, even though
suspension is closed. It is further pleaded that no enquiry on the
charges was conducted by management so the question of closing the
enquiry does not arise at all and instead of it, the management by
imposing the punishment, transferred the workman at Hibbal, Mesur
Branch and also stopped the promotion for three years for which the
workman also replied the same to management on 29.04.2016. It
was also pleaded that there was no clause of transfer in the offer
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 8/19
letter of the management which was given to the workman at the
time of appointment, hence, the transfer is illegal and unjustified.
16. On the contrary, it is the case of management that workman,
with support of Branch Head Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Asst. Branch
Head Mr. Vikas Kumar purposely granted gold loans for an amount
of Rs. 41,10,625/- against spurious items in favour of the customers
and act of the workman has resulted in huge monitory loss apart
from the damages caused to the reputation of management company.
It is pleaded that on 25.02.2016, Mr. Narayana Gouda, Internal
Auditor of management company has reported a cash shortage of
amounting to Rs. 2,62,998/- in Rohini, Sector-3, Branch of the
management and Branch Head explained that Mr. Rajesh Kumar
(Customer) has given ornaments against which cash was released but
the pledge was not done in the system. It is pleaded that in order to
compensate the cash shortage, the Branch Head with the help of
Assistant Branch Head and the workman created three pledges for an
amount of Rs. 99,999/-, Rs. 99,999/- and Rs. 63,000/- respectively
which are reportedly dummy pledges without any ornaments which
were subsequently settled without receiving the cash by Branch
Head for avoiding internal audit thereby the Branch Head with the
support of Assistant Branch Head and the workman has given cash to
the said Rajesh without collecting gold ornaments.
17. It is further the case of management that after that Branch
Head with the support of Assistant Branch Head and workman has
also settled five pledge accounts in the name of Mr. Rajesh for an
amount of Rs. 5,00,644/- of which ornaments are reportedly spurious
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 9/19
without receiving cash in order to escape from the audit.
Thereafter, a memo dated 03.03.2016 was issued to the workman
mentioning that the workman has colluded with Branch Head and
Assistant Branch Head and committed gross misconducts involving
financial misappropriation of the funds of the management company
purposely granting Gold Loans against spurious items in favour of
customers aggregating Rs. 41,10,625/- and workman was placed
under suspension with immediate effect. It is pleaded that workman
was intimated by letter dated 19.03.2016 that enquiry would be
conducted on 05.04.2016 from 10.00 a.m. onwards and workman
despite being given opportunity to remain present at inquiry, the
workman remained absent from hearing without submitting any
application/explanation or any other reason. It is pleaded that
management also lodged an FIR No. 0235/2016 under section
40/420/468/471/120B IPC dated 08.06.2016 against the workman
and staff members involved in frauding the management. It is further
pleaded that a reporting memo dated 06.05.2016 was issued to the
workman mentioning that management has confirmed his proposed
punishment of baring his promotion/transfer for the next three years
and his suspension was revoked with immediate effect and workman
was transferred to Hebbal Mysore Branch, Mangalore region but
workman neither pay any heed upon the reporting memo nor join the
management. Thereafter, workman issued a notice dated 25.06.2016
mentioning that workman has not reported for duty and not
submitted satisfactory explanation as directed, accordingly, name of
workman was removed from the rolls of the management w.e.f.
25.06.2016 and payment of subsistence allowance to suspended
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 10/19
employee was transferred in the account of workman by
management.
18. My issue wise findings are as under:-
19. Issue No. (3) Whether the claim of the workman has
been properly espoused by the Union?OPW:-
20. Issue No. 3 is taken up first. The onus to prove this issue was on
the workman. The management has taken this contention that the
present dispute has not been properly espoused by the union. On the
other hand, the A.R. of the Workman in order to prove the proper
espousal of the dispute has placed reliances upon Ex. WW1/1 i.e. the
complaint made to Labour Commissioner against the management
which is on the letter head of union and bearing signature and stamp
of President of Union namely Tarsem Raj (WW-2). Copy of claim
filed before Labour Commissioner Ex. WW-1/3 has been placed on
record and perusal of same shows that said claim was also filed
through union of workma. Ex. WW-2/1 is the resolution passed by
the Union for raising an industrial dispute in favour of the workman
and against the workman and it is bearing signatures of President,
General Secretary and Secretary of the union. Further reliance upon
the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Omji Srivastava
and Ors. vs. P.W.D./C.P.W.D., 2023/DHC/002013, wherein the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court after relying upon the case of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in J.H. Jadhav v. M/s Forbes Gokak Ltd., Civil
Appeal No. 1089 of 2005, decided on 11.02.2005 has held that the
cause of the workman is properly espoused by the union. The
relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 11/19
"20. Based on the said legal principle, this Court examined the
evidence adduced by the Petitioners/Workmen. The
Petitioners/Workmen proved on record Exhibit WW-2/1
(Statement of Claim dated 23.12.2002 filed by the Hindustan
Engineering General Mazdoor Union on behalf of the
Petitioner before the Conciliation officer), Exhibit
WW2/2(AD card for the legal notice issued by the Union),
Exhibit WW-2/3 (Authorisation letter dated 23.12.2002
issued by the Petitioners/Workmen to Hindustan Engineering
General Mazdoor Union), Exhibit WW2/4 to Exhibit WW2/7
(Demand letters dated 23.12.2002 & 05.02.2002 issued by
the Hindustan General Mazdoor Union to the Respondent
No. 1 Management espousing the cause of the Petitioners/Workmen). These documents show that the Petitioners/Workmen authorized the Hindustan General Mazdoor Union to take up the cause. In pursuance of the said authorisation, the said union issued demand letters and filed the claim petition before the Conciliation Officer. Based on the said claim Petition, the appropriate Government referred the said dispute to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. Just because there was no witness from the Union, it cannot be said that the cause of the Petitioners/Workmen has not been espoused by the Union.
21. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.M Jhadav Vs Forbes Gokak Ltd reported as MANU/SC/0103/2005 : 2005 (3) SCC 202, there is no particular form prescribed to effect the espousal. Generally, Union passes resolutions, however sometimes proof of support by the Union may also be available aliunde. It would depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, even though no resolution was placed on record on behalf of the Union, from the documents placed on record by the Petitioners/Workmen, i.e. Exhibit WW2/1 to WW2/7, it is evident that the Hindustan General Mazdoor Union has espoused the cause of the Petitioners/Workmen."
21. The similar issue came up before the Division Bench of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the matter of Mangalam POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 12/19 Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Saju George, W.A. No. 964 of 2020, decided on 01.12.2020 and held:-
"7......There is no doubt about the fact that the workman was a member of the concerned WA No.964/2020 union. According to the workman, the cause of the workman was undertaken by the union even at the initial stage. Apparently, there was no objection from the side of the management during the relevant time. Thereafter, the matter was considered and ultimately the dispute had been referred for consideration by the Tribunal. Once a reference had been made at the instance of the union, it is not open for the management to contend at this stage of the proceedings that the cause of the workman had not been espoused by the union."
22. Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pratap Singh & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , WP(C) No. 676/2013 vide order dated 04.02.2013 revered the findings of the Ld. Labour Court on the issue of espousal by categorizing it as hypertechnical and held that the cause of the workman is properly espoused by the union. The relevant portion of the jugedment is reproduced below:
"Learned counsel for the respondent fairly cannot dispute the position that the view taken by the Labour Court on the issue of espousal of the petitioners cause is hyper technical. There is no dispute about the fact that the union had held its meeting on 22.10.2005 and decided to espouse the petitioners cause, on which date, the espousal letter was also issued by the union. Merely because Sh. B.K. Prasad may not have been the president of the union on the said date and he became the president in the year 2007, would make no difference. Such a hyper technical view defeats the objective of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The mere wrong description of the designation of Sh. B.K. Prasad in POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 13/19 the espousal letter would not render the fact of espousal of the petitioners cause unreliable.
Pertinently, the MCD General Mazdoor Union is a recognized union and the said union has not come forward to claim that they had not espoused the cause of the petitioners on 22.10.2005. Accordingly, the decision of the Labour Court on issue no.2 is reversed. It is held that the petitioners cause was duly espoused by the MCD General Mazdoor Union."
23. The management has taken the objection in regard to espousal in their written statement, however, it does not disclose the ground/ reason upon which this objection is taken. Whereas, the workman has placed on record several documents as discussed above, more specifically resolution Ex. WW-2/1 wherein the members of union unanimously decided to raise an industrial dispute in favour of the workman. The Prsident of the union was also examined as WW-2 who corroborated the testimony of the workman and he was never cross-examined by manageament despite grant of several opportunities.
24. Even otherwise, the management did not take any such objection when the proceedings were conducted before the conciliation officer. Therefore, at this belated stage the management is not allowed to take this contention more so in the absence of basis/reason for stating that the present dispute is not espoused properly by the union. In view of above, this tribunal is of the opinion that the contention of the management is a mere technical one, and does not stand in light of the evidence placed by the workman on record. Therefore, this tribunal holds that the dispute is POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 14/19 properly espoused by the Union of the workman. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management.
25. Issue No. (1) Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is not fair and proper?OPW and Issue No. (2) In case the answer to issue No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the workman has committed the misconduct as alleged by the management?OPM and Issue No. (4). As per terms of reference. OPW
26. All these issues are taken up together being inter-connected.
27. In order to prove his case, workman himself appeared in witness box and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. WW-1/A. He also relied upon several documents as detailed in his affidavit Ex. WW-1/1 to WW-1/19. The complaint made to Labour Department against the management through union is proved on record as Ex. WW-1/1, the proceeiding sheet of labour department has been proved on record as Ex. WW-1/2. The statement of claim filed before Labour Department is proved on record as Ex. WW-1/3. The workman has also proved on record copy of his appointment letter dated 25.07.2015 which is Ex. WW-1/4, the copy of notice of removal from rolls of the company was proved as Ex. WW-1/5, reply to memo dated 03.03.2016 was proved as Ex. WW-1/6 and its postal receipts were proved as Ex. WW-1/7 to WW-1/9. Further the reply dated 28.03.2016 to memo dated 04.03.2016 and domestic inquiry was proved as Ex. WW-1/10 and postal receipts were proved as Ex. WW-1/11 and WW-1/12. Reply dated 29.04.2016 in regard to memo dated 25.04.2016 was proved as Ex. WW-1/13 and its postal receipts POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 15/19 were proved as EX. WW-1/14 and WW-1/15. The demand notice issued by workman upon management dated 20.05.2016 is proved as Ex. WW-1/16 and its postal receipt and acknowledgment are proved as Ex. WW-1/17 and WW-1/18 and another notice dated 25.05.2016 served upon management by workman is proved as Ex. WW-1/19. All these documents have been duly proved on record.
28. In cross-examination of WW-1, it has come that WW-1 was engaged in Rohini Branch for maintaining cash and also visit the customers and he was also sent for collecting cash from other branches. He admitted that management can transfer the workman in any branch and he did not join Hibbal Mysore Branch when management offered him to join there and voluntarily deposed that because of certain conditions, he did not join and conditions were that there was no promotion for three years and three years no transfer and management was asking for alleged recovery of approx Rs. 8 to 10 lacs). He also deposed that it was his duty to check the purity of gold and voluntarily deposed that he was fresher at that time and Branch Head also checked the gold. He was put specific question whether he challenged the internal inquiry report dated 08.04.2016 held by managment to which he deposed that he replied in writing. He denied the suggestion that he was terminated due to his negligent conduct. So from his cross-examination, it is clear that he did not join the services at transferred placed as stringent conditions were imposed on him which were not acceptale to workman.
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 16/1929. WW-2 Sh. Tarsem Raj is the President of Delhi Mazdoor Sangh (Regd.) and he has proved the resolution Ex. WW-2/1. This was not cross-examined by management despite grant of several opportunities and imposing costs. Hence the witness was discharged unexamined and W.E. was closed.
30. On the other hand, in support of their case, the management neither appeared nor produced any witness. The Ld. Predecessor court also observed that workman had not received advance copy of the evidence affidavit and no affidavit was filed, hence, M.E. was closed vide order dated 16.09.2022. Thereafter also, management did not moved any application for re-opening of their evidence. Furthermore, the mangement has not bothered to file any affidavit of evidence or to produce any witness on their behalf despite grant of various opportunities. It is not made out as to why so called inquiry proceedings were conducted at Kerela only though admittedly, the workman was working with management at Delhi. So the management has remained reluctant in proving their case.
31. As far as question of registration of FIR against workman is concerned, same is separate criminal proceedings and have no bearing with present case and at the end, if workman is proved guilty, he will definitely have to undergo sentence as described in relevant provisions of law.
32. Furthermore, the inquiry proceedings have not been proved on record as per law and management has failed to prove their case. It is to be seen that though the inquiry report has not been proved by managment but same has been filed by management, so it can be POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 17/19 read against the management but not against the workman. The allegations levelled against the workman require full fledged inquiry. The management has not proved on record as to whether memo of charges were served on the workman. There is no reasoning given in the inquiry report. No witness apart from MW-1 was produced in inquiry proceedings or in this court to prove the misappropriation or negligence by workman. The onus was on the management to prove the issue but they have failed to do. The workman was only required to rebut the same, so the workman has been successul in proving the demolition of case of management. For want of contrary evidence from the side of management, his claim has remained unrebutted and unchallenged.
33. Therefore, in view of the of the admitted position and the material on record, this tribunal holds that the management has clearly committed unfair labour practice by imposing penalty upon the workman vide memo dated 06.05.2016 and same is illegal and unjustified. It is also held that the enquiry conducted by the management is not fair and proper. Since issuse No. 1 is proved in favour of workman and it has come on record that inquiry was conducted at Kerela only and workman did not participate in said proceedings and further the said inquiry proceedings have not been proved on record by management by leading evidence, filing affidavit and producing witness, hence it is also held that the workman has not committed the misconduct as alleged by the management. Accordingly, these issues are proved in favour of workman and against the management.
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 18/1934. Relief: - In view of my foregoing findings on aforesaid issues, this Tribunal holds that the punishment imposed upon the workman Sh. Satyender Kumar Patel S/o Sh. Bechai Patel by the management vide memo No. S./Enq./315381/6/2016 dated 06.05.2016 is illegal and unsatisfied and natural consequences will follow. No reference with respect to other relief has been forwarded to this Tribunal. The workman is at liberty to take the steps. The terms of reference is decided in favour of the workman and against the management. The award is passed accordingly.
35. Copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
AJAY AJAY GOEL
Date:
GOEL 2023.11.17
15:26:41
+0530
Announced in open Tribunal
on this 16.11.2023 (Ajay Goel)
POIT-I/RADC, New Delhi.
POIT-1111/2016 Page No. 19/19